EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Sumit Chadgal
dblp:426/3210
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper |
Software maintenance and evolution · 44% Program synthesis and code generation · 44% Empirical software engineering · 13% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Program synthesis and code generation
AI-generated code detection |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | StackPlagger: A System for Identifying AI-Code Plagiarism on Stack Overflow · ASE 2025 |
Software maintenance and evolution › code clone detection
software plagiarism detection |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | StackPlagger: A System for Identifying AI-Code Plagiarism on Stack Overflow · ASE 2025 |
Empirical software engineering
mining software repositories |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | StackPlagger: A System for Identifying AI-Code Plagiarism on Stack Overflow · ASE 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
stylometric features · 0.9pre-trained embeddings · 0.9ensemble learning · 0.9adversarial prompting · 0.9
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | StackPlagger: A System for Identifying AI-Code Plagiarism on Stack OverflowabstractIdentifying AI code plagiarism on technical forums like Stack Overflow (SO) is critical, as it can directly impact the platform’s trust and credibility. While previous studies have explored AI-generated code detection, they have focused on long, standalone samples from repositories and competitions. In contrast, SO snippets are often short, fragmented, and context-specific, which can make detection more challenging. Furthermore, existing methods have also not adequately addressed the concern of obfuscated or adversarially prompted code that are crafted to mimic human style and evade detection. To address these gaps, we first introduce a curated dataset of 8000 SO-ChatGPT snippet pairs generated using multiple adversarial prompts. While earlier methods solely relied on pre-trained models, we propose an ensemble approach combining stylometric features of code along with the pre-trained embeddings to improve detection performance. Finally, we deploy our fine-tuned model as a Google Chrome extension called ‘StackPlagger’, which can flag AI-generated code in SO answers and display AI confidence scores. Video demonstration and the associated artifacts of our tool can be found at https://youtu.be/6O9Urp2mvbI and https://github.com/harsh-g1/StackPlagger, respectively. Aman Swaraj, Harsh Goyal, Sumit Chadgal, Sandeep Kumar 0004 |
ASE | 3 |